Thursday, April 30, 2015

By Dave AndruskoOf the three categories of posts on National Right to Life News Today
that receive the most response, two are especially adroit at combining
appeals to the head and to the heart. By that I mean prenatal
development videos and music videos, such as John Elefante’s wonderful
pro-life, pro-adoption “This Time” (“Pro-Life Music Video ‘This Time’ goes viral’”)

On their own National Right to Life News Today readers
periodically send me examples of these two kinds of videos. First, the
ones that illustrate that most miraculous process–how you and I each
started out the same but ended up each unique. Second, there are
pro-life music videos.
So, as I do occasionally, today I am reaching out asking you to send me links to just such videos.
Here’s an example: “The case against abortion: prenatal development.”

Only 3 minutes and eleven seconds long, the video covers the
waterfront at a breakneck speed. The video borrows from many of the
finest resources—in print and online—to create a riveting and absolutely
convincing case against abortion.
Backed by a pulsating music score, a question flashes across the
screen: “At what point does it become wrong to intentionally abort a
developing human being?” Options range from conception through birth.
We see a snapshot of a Gallup poll where 2/3rds support a
first-trimester abortion but only 10% support a third trimester
abortion. Why the discrepancy?”
Because the former “kills a baby” while a first trimester abortion “kills a bunch of cells…. Or does it?”
The remainder of the video races through a highly entertaining,
richly informative/persuasive tour conclusively demonstrating the
developmental continuity of human beings whose maturation unfolds just
the way it is supposed to–unless he or she is aborted.

“The case against abortion: prenatal development” begins with a quick
perusal of the prenatal photography taken by Lennart Nilsson in his
classic, “A Child is Born.” We see in these photos the developmental
milestones and how remarkably intricate the child even in the first
weeks.
Next to flash on a screen is that statement, “Nucleus [Medical] Media
creates award winning medical illustrations.” Now we are shown the
unborn as if her mother’s body is translucent. Again, it is remarkable
how developmentally sophisticated the child even in the first trimester.
“On the outside chance you’re still envisioning the first trimester
embryos and fetuses as shapeless clumps of tissue…” we are introduced to
“The biology of prenatal development.” As it happens I wrote about this
incredible 42-minute-long DVD in 2010.

This documentary utilizes six different imaging technologies to give
you unforgettable images inside the womb of the growing baby at the
embryonic and fetal stages. The breath-taking real-time pictures that
are utilized are of the human embryo in the first three weeks. Without
thinking, you have absorbed another lesson in early prenatal
development, including the fact that six week embryos have measurable
brain impulses.

Then the first of two key truths wrap up, “The case against abortion: prenatal development.”

“They may not look like a baby yet, but they look exactly as a human being should look, 21 days after conception.”

To finish the point, we see highlighted text from Geraldine Lux Flanagan’s book, “Beginning Life” that reads,

“In the hours of conception,
every aspect of the genetic inheritance for the new individual will be
determined once and for all.”

When PPFA president Cecile Richards wrote in ELLE magazine last fall that she’d had an abortion, we discussed that revelation once and then, shortly later, wrote about it again.
And because this is the president of the largest abortion conglomerate in the galaxy, we returned for a third time when Richards posted a 1 minute, 19 second long video for “The 1 in 3 Campaign,” a project of Advocates for Youth.

Now, having got the hang of it, Richards has just written for what
has become another in-house publication of the Abortion Movement–TIME magazine–under the headline “We Need to Talk—Really Talk—About Abortion.”
Before we get to why we really need to talk about
abortion, according to Richards, some background will help us understand
her “evolution” from a Johnny-come-lately (in “speaking” about her
abortion) to someone who can’t talk about it enough.
Her October 2014 ELLE essay ran under the headline “Ending
the Silence That Fuels Abortion Stigma.” The essay was 748 words long.
Just 68 talked about her own abortion in language that was almost
clinical.
By contrast her interview with Cosmopolitan, even with a
highly sympathetic interviewer, couldn’t be that bland. What was
interesting (as we wrote) was her insistence that her family had handled
this shocker in an almost matter-of-fact fashion.
Richards said when she opened up to ELLE, her children’s response to learning they were short a sibling

was really awesome. It’s
interesting, I just talked to my kids the other day, and they knew I’d
had an abortion, and they were sort of like, “Mom, it was no big deal,”
but I could also tell it was important to them that we talked about it. I
look at the positive response from Planned Parenthood employees……[etc.,
etc., etc.]

But how could that possibly be true? If it was “no big deal,” how and why could she tell “it was important to them that we talked about it”?
You know your mom is a big shot in the “pro-choice” movement, runs in
powerful circles, and is joined at the hip to pro-abortion President of
the United States.
But while your mom has talked about being non-judgmental; about how
having an abortion is easy as pie; about “freeing women,” you didn’t
know that she non-judgmentally freed herself by having an easy-as-pie
abortion of your brother or sister.Of course that would be a big deal, which is why my sympathies immediately went out to Richards’ children.

Which brings us to her TIME magazine essay.
Richards is delighted that movies and television programs are talking
about abortion–talking about abortion in the prescribed fashion, of
course. (They “depict women making the decision to have an abortion and
finding support from their family and friends.”) She’s even happier that
celebrities such as Jemima Kirke are talking about their abortions.

Richards conveniently omits that these “stories” reveal far more than
is intended and, in fact, often work against the narrative that
abortion is as safe as taking two aspirins and that Planned Parenthood
is a paragon of health care virtue. (See here.)

She also subtly suggests that abortion is an almost afterthought to PPFA, which is absolutely not the case.
But in a sense Richards is right about one thing in her TIME essay.
The discussion about abortion is “filled with “myths” and “stereotypes”–but not
because they are filling a “void” left as the result of women failing
to talk about their abortions. The myths and stereotypes are of the
Abortion Industry’s own making.
Such as? The illogical myth that there is essentially no post-abortion aftermath–and if a woman is
having problems they are because she had emotional or psychological
difficulties prior to the abortion. (How’s that for sympathetic?)
In fact, a sizeable minority of women do have a whole range of difficulties, as we have discussed numerous times at NRL News and NRL News Today.

Or the myth that the ranks of the abortion industry is filled with Dr. Welbys. Just read about abortionist Steven Brigham–just one of the many, many stories we have written about abortionists–and you quickly realize how grotesquely untrue that is.
And then there such demeaning stereotypes as the cruel notion that
the thousands of loving pro-life volunteers who work at women helping
centers care not about the woman or girl who is about to make a
life-and-death decision but only about their “ideology.”
Richards concludes, “Women are increasingly feeling supported to
share stories that have, in some cases, been kept silent for years.”
True.
But they are not stories that celebrate their abortions.
Overwhelmingly they are confessionals in which a woman says she would do
anything if she could just go back in time and save her baby.
But those are not the kind of stories that TIME magazine gives space to or ELLE touts to its readers.

Pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton received a fair
amount of attention–including from us–for parts of a remarkably candid
(and disturbing) speech she delivered last week to the “Women in The
World Summit” in New York City [http://nrlc.cc/1zqsTKS].
More than one person subsequently told me that whatever negative
publicity she received at the time for the speech in which she blew
kisses to her pro-abortion sisters, it would be small compared to the
far greater blowback the former Secretary of State will eventually
experience.
I thought of those conversations when I read USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers’ blistering op-ed that ran yesterday.

In case you’ve forgotten, Clinton said the following:

“Yes, we’ve cut the maternal
mortality rate in half but far too many women are denied access to
reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws don’t count
for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not
just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political
will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural
biases have to be changed [applause]. As I have said
and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and
girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished
business of the 21st century, and not just for women, but for everyone —
and not just in far away countries but right here in the United
States.”

The message was impossible to miss: to bring real “reproductive
health care” to the ends of the earth (Hillary and Bill Clinton are
anti-life missionaries), a lot that means a great deal to billions of
people must be jettisoned.

And you don’t change what Clinton labeled “deep-seated cultural
codes, religious beliefs and structural biases” with pleasantries. You
do so coercively, with the power of the state.
Powers asks Clinton to dispense with the euphemisms–she is talking
about abortion and contraception— and “Then she should explain why she
thinks she, or anyone else, has the right to dictate what religious
people believe about either issue. We know she wants to be president —
but does she think she is God, too?”

Our issue is abortion, so let’s see what else Powers has to say about
Clinton’s speech and abortion. There are three main points.

* “Like President Obama — who famously opined that
Americans ‘cling’ to religion out of bitterness — Clinton seems to view
religious doctrine in opposition to her political agenda as nothing more
than ‘biases’ or ‘codes’ to be dismantled by those who know better,”
Powers writes.
There are differences, of course, between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton
but they share an abiding faith (so to speak) in the power of abortion
to reshape the world and the right/obligation of people like them to
make people like us kneel to their agenda.

* Powers offers, “It would take an army of
psychologists to determine why Clinton believes that her worldview
should override that of centuries of religious doctrine,” adding,
“Religious beliefs that differ from mine are not automatically viewed as
targets for transformation.” But they need to be
“transformed” because the enlightened elite know better. And if you have
to do so by legislation, activist courts, or the power of the purse,
well, why not?

* A number of writers, including me (and now Powers) placed Clinton’s chilling comments alongside a post by New York Times
columnist Frank Bruni. Bruni has not been, is not now, and likely will
be even less likely in the future to worry about the religious rights of
those who disagree with his agenda on social issues.
As Matt Lewis said of Bruni

Hillary’s comments also remind me
of something Frank Bruni wrote in a recent column, “Bigotry, the Bible,
and the Lessons of Indiana.” In that piece Bruni argues that “our
debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about
freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t
cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other
aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments
of modernity.”

And if you and I don’t willing bow “to the enlightenments of
modernity”? Bruni doesn’t say and neither (precisely) does Hillary
Clinton. But Powers has a pretty good idea. She ends her column

The intolerance, condescension
and ignorance expressed about religious people is troubling enough in
itself. But what sends chills up the spine is the barely veiled advocacy
for authoritarianism when religious beliefs clash with secular sacred
cows. … How exactly will Clinton change religious beliefs at odds with
her worldview?

Pregnant and alone at Harvard

Send to Kindle

By Dave AndruskoThe last NRL News Today
post for Wednesday is by far the most important. It is my reflections
on a confessional that appeared in Harvard University’s student
newspaper under the headline “Pregnant at Harvard?”

There is no online commentary following the story, written by
“Anonymous.” Why? We’re told the op-ed is “anonymously due to the
private and intensely personal nature of its content.” Online commentary
“has been disabled for this piece in an effort to help protect the
author’s identity.”
Everything about this story screams pain–an
“all-encompassing pain.” We were all young once and most of us attended a
college or university. Once we left home, we can remember how ‘free’ we
suddenly found ourselves. And the author of this op-ed is
honest–brutally honest–about how head-over-heels she fell in love with
her “soulmate,” the “one person who had promised to always be there for
me.” And, as is almost always the case, they broke up. Only later did
she find out she was nearly four months pregnant.

“Looking back, it seems obvious that my symptoms were classic
pregnancy indicators, clues we all learn in ninth-grade health class,”
she writes. “I wasn’t stupid. But perhaps I was in denial.” Perhaps?
She adds, “I woke up every day praying that I was having some
extended nightmare. I wasn’t.” A week later she headed to the clinic

with just a book, a water bottle,
my Harvard ID, and a locket containing a picture of my ex-boyfriend and
me. The procedure didn’t take long. It wasn’t even that physically
painful. But when it was over, I screamed. I couldn’t stop screaming. As
I write these words, it has been over a month since the abortion—and on
the inside that screaming hasn’t stopped.

I truly want you to read “Pregnant at Harvard?” so let me add just these thoughts.
It’s been a month since the abortion, she writes

There are nights where I stay up
holding the locket [which has her ex-boyfriend’s picture in it], the one
piece I have of both my ex-boyfriend and my child, and just cry
hysterically. There are nights where I try so hard to convince myself
that life is worthwhile by talking myself to sleep with thoughts of
stargazing and dancing and laughter, but no matter what I think about I
can’t get rid of an all-encompassing sense of pain.

“Anonymous” talks about how hard it can be at Harvard to get help,
how easy it is to feel utterly alone, and how amazing it is that her
roommates missed all the obvious signs. She wanted someone to take the
initiative–to come to her.
She ends her powerful op-ed with thoughts about it might be “easier” to shove the ‘issue’ under the rug. But…

I’ve tried to cope with my
situation by distracting myself with other boys; my ex uses his current
girlfriend to pretend that everything is normal. Sometimes reality is
too hard to deal with, and finding any escape seems like the only
plausible option. This—telling my story—is a way to say that no matter
what you’re going through, even if you can’t reach out for help at this
point, you’re not the only one. You are not alone.

If you saw me today, you’d never
guess what I’m hiding. You’d see me heading to class with an oversized
backpack, or studying in Lamont, or dancing at a final club, or laughing
in the dining hall while surrounded by friends. I look happy. But on
the inside, I’m still screaming. …

I wonder if that “Pregnant At
Harvard?” brochure is still sitting untouched in the Women’s Center.
Maybe I should’ve picked it up freshman year.

We last reported on abortionist Steven Brigham
earlier this month. At the time, Brigham, 58, was (not surprisingly)
appealing the decision of the 16-member New Jersey Board of Medical
Examiners to permanently revoke his license.
Among other things the Board “voted unanimously that Brigham had
engaged in professional misconduct, dishonesty and misrepresentations,
and repeated acts of negligence, based on the records.”

In the meanwhile Brigham had to divest himself of ownership of his
eight abortion clinics in New Jersey, the bulk of his “American Women’s
Services,” multi-state operation.
Following the Board’s decision, there was a passing reference in
several accounts to his medical director, Vikram Kaji. In a story that
appeared in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, Marie McCullough fleshed out what has happened since.

Indeed Brigham (who has a “25-year, multistate history of battling
medical boards, regulators, the IRS, landlords, creditors, and criminal
prosecutors in Maryland,” according to McCullough) has sold his
interests to Kaji.

Who is Kaji? In the mid-1990s, his “medical license was suspended in
New Jersey and Pennsylvania,” McCullough explains, “for sexually abusing
patients and wrongly prescribing controlled substances.” The Inquirer
emailed Neal Buccino, spokesman for New Jersey’s Division of Consumer
Affairs, who wrote back, “Dr. Kaji’s license is currently active, and
not subject to restrictions.”

McCullough, who has done outstanding work over the years covering Brigham, explains in great detail both the latest outrageous behavior and just some of the lengthy history.
By way of summary…

Brigham got in trouble most recently in New Jersey and Maryland for
doing what he was disciplined for doing back in the 1990s: starting a
late-term abortion in one state (New Jersey) but extracting the dead
baby in another (Maryland, where Brigham was never licensed) a day or
two later. He claimed it was out of fear of pro-life activists, but in
fact, prosecutors say it was “because Brigham’s New Jersey clinics do
not meet the state’s outpatient surgical safety requirements, and he is
not credentialed to perform the risky surgeries,” McCullough reported.

The clandestine operation went on until an 18-year-old woman, 21½ weeks pregnant, almost died.
No matter how many legal and administrative straits Brigham has found
himself in, “American Women’s Services has continued to operate
clinics, even in states where Brigham has lost a license or never had
one,” McCullough explains. “Currently, American Women’s Services’
website advertises 16 clinics in New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania. The two Pennsylvania sites – Pittsburgh and Allentown –
are listed as ‘temporarily closed,’ even though in 2012, the state
ordered Brigham to let the public know the clinics were permanently
shuttered.”

So, in spite of pleading poverty before the New Jersey Board of
Medical Examiners (the board ordered him to pay $561,000 in penalties
and prosecution costs on top of a half-million federal IRS lien “for not
paying employee taxes”), Brigham “fights on,” McCullough writes.

“He has appealed his New Jersey license revocation to Superior Court’s Appellate Division.”

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Woman’s story of abortion loss: Nurse told said her baby was “not a real person”

Send to Kindle

Editor’s note. This appeared at ClinicQuotes.One woman tells her abortion story in an article that appeared in America magazine.

During the next 18 years I never
gave the abortion more than a moment’s thought. Hadn’t I made the phone
call as soon as I thought I might be pregnant? Hadn’t the nurse at the
clinic told me that at six weeks the fetus was a blob of muscle and
tissue, not a real person yet? Isn’t the discussion on when life begins
being argued in worldwide circles? Because I was so quick to act, the
abortion had little effect on me–until I became sober.

It was then I knew I had done
something terribly wrong. I couldn’t find a way to make amends for
taking a life that God wanted in this world. There was a saying in my
recovery group that if the program wasn’t working for you to look back
on your life and find something you didn’t think important at the time.
After almost two decades of prayer and meditation, living a good life
and making amends for harms done, something was still wrong with me. I
had a picture-perfect sobriety, yet all was not right. Could the quick
abortion in January 1973 when I was 27 be what I thought wasn’t
important? Well, maybe.

She confessed her sin three times, and a priest told her to go to a Rachel’s vineyard retreat (a postabortion ministry)

If I were to speak to any woman
thinking about an abortion, I would put my arm around her and tell her
about my abrupt alienation from my husband, my alcoholism, my drug
addiction, the period during which I hated the church I had earlier
loved, the dark life of sin. Then I would urge her to choose life.

Director of Public Prosecutions faces new legal challenge for ‘clarifying’ guidelines on prosecutions for assisted suicide

Send to Kindle

By Dr. Peter SaundersEditor’s note. Dr. Saunders is a former general surgeon and CEO
of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organization with 4,500 UK
doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. Being behind the
“paywall” means a reader has to pay to read the story which appeared in
the Sunday Times.

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders

Perhaps surprisingly, the Sunday Times has been the only
broadsheet newspaper [that is, not a tabloid] to cover a landmark case
which challenges the powers of the crown prosecution service.
Sadly this latest case lies behind the Sunday Times paywall
which has somewhat restricted it coming to the wider public attention
that it deserves, so I will quote some of the article in this post.

‘A woman who was once so
paralysed she could only wink her right eye will this week launch a High
Court challenge against “liberal” guidelines on assisted suicide
brought in by Alison Saunders, the embattled director of public
prosecutions (DPP).

Nikki Kenward, 62, will on
Tuesday seek a judicial review after doctors and nurses who help
severely disabled or terminally ill people to take their own lives were
told that they are now less likely to face criminal charges.’

Kenward, a former theatre manager, was struck down by Guillian-Barre syndrome in 1990, aged 37.
She was initially fully paralysed for more than five months, and has
been in a wheelchair since. She cannot tie her laces or hold a needle,
but had a play staged last year and campaigns against euthanasia and
assisted suicide through the Distant Voices pressure group. Her case is
backed by the Christian Legal Centre.
Lawyers for Kenward will argue that Alison Saunders, Director of
public prosecutions, exceeded her powers with what she called a
‘clarification’ to the guidelines on prosecution for assisted suicide which Saunders made last October.
They will argue that she has entered a policy realm that should
properly be a matter not for her but for parliament. The lawyers will
also say that the attorney-general has failed in his duty to
‘superintend’ the DPP.
In other words they will claim that she has gone beyond her remit which is to uphold the law and not to make the law.
To quote the Sunday Times again:

They are expected to argue
Saunders’s guidance will “enable healthcare professionals operating on
an ideological or other premise to offer their services to a person
wishing to commit suicide . . . this is crossing the Rubicon.” They will
add: it will “make any prohibition on a Dignitas-style of assisted
suicide difficult to resist.”

[It] weakens the protection given by parliament to people . . . coming under pressure to commit assisted suicide.

The fuller background to this case deserves unpacking.
Back in 2009, as a result of the Supreme Court judgment in the Debbie
Purdy case, the DPP was required to make public the criteria by which
he (then Keir Starmer) decided whether a prosecution in a given case of
assisted suicide was in the public interest.

Starmer published an interim policy and put it out to public
consultation. After the consultation was completed, he modified this
interim policy and published his definitive policy in February 2010.
The summary of responses received and the responses themselves are still in the public domain.
The interim policy did not contain a paragraph about the role of
medical professionals but as a result of the consultation one was
included in the definitive policy.
It now says that a prosecution is more likely to be required if… [clause 14]

“the suspect was acting in his or
her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional,
a professional carer [whether for payment or not], or as a person in
authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her
care;”

Keir Starmer gave his reasons for including the new clause here.
Saunders, Starmer’s successor, subsequently ‘clarified’ the words in bold last October as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt the
words “and the victim was in his or her care” qualify all of the
preceding parts of this paragraph [43.14]. This factor does not apply
merely because someone was acting in a capacity described within it: it
applies only where there was, in addition, a relationship of care
between the suspect and the victims such that it will be necessary to
consider whether the suspect may have exerted some influence on the
victim.

The key questions raised by
Kenward’s case are whether this amounts to a change in the policy or
merely a clarification and whether the DPP should have made the change
without consulting anybody.

My own view is that DPP has actually crossed the line in both instances.
The relevant factors as I see it are as follows:
1. The ‘clarification’ makes it clear that doctors who do not have ‘a
relationship of care between the suspect and the victims such that it
will be necessary to consider whether the suspect may have exerted some
influence on the victim’ are now not within the scope of this clause.
This surely means that people like Philip Nitschke and Michael Irwin,
who have made names for themselves by assisting suicides in various ways
whilst not being the patient’s primary care giver, are less likely to
be prosecuted. This is real change in my view. Irwin, who welcomed it
[the “clarification”] as ‘a wonderful softening’ agrees with me. I think
it is also clear from the current General Medical Council (GMC)
guidance and Medical Defence Union (MDU) guidance that these bodies did
not understand the guidance in the way that Alison Saunders has now
re-interpreted it. See below
2. Assisted suicide is contrary to all historical codes of medical
ethics including the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, the
International code of medical ethics and the Statement of Marbella –
which was reaffirmed by the World Medical association (WMA) as recently
as 2013. The latter reads, “Physician-assisted suicide, like euthanasia,
is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the
assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed
at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts
unethically.” So a strong argument could be made that this new
“clarification” is morally corrupting for the medical profession as it
makes possible their direct involvement in an unethical practice with
far less possibility of prosecution.
3. Assisted Suicide is opposed by the British Medical Association,
the World Medical Association, the Association for Palliative Medicine,
the British Geriatric Society and virtually every Royal Medical College
including the RCGP and the RCP.
4. The GMC makes it clear in its guidance on assisted suicide that
‘encouraging or assisting suicide’ is against the law. It makes no
mention of any mitigating factors and warns doctors strongly against any
involvement. It certainly does not convey the impression that doctors
like Irwin, Nitschke, etc, are exempt. It is precisely this
understanding of the law which led to Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb
trying unsuccessfully to change it through the courts. Saunders seems
now effectively to have done that at the mere stroke of a pen.

5. It is precisely people like Nitschke and Irwin who will push the
envelope rather than ordinary GPs in a relationship of care with
patients, although the ‘clarification’ does also give scope to GPs to do
a little assisted suicide on the side with patients who are not “in
their immediate care.” This clarification appears to give them free
rein.

6. The phrase “In their care” can be interpreted in several different
ways. One might argue that any doctor using his skill and expertise to
help a patient kill themselves is actually involved in “care” even if he
is not their primary doctor.

7. The reason people responding to the original consultation pushed
for the inclusion of the doctor clause in the first place was because of
concerns about the unique position of doctors. Doctors possess the sort
of knowledge and power that could easily be abused. We have seen
already how they push legal boundaries with abortion and how prosecutors
are very unwilling to hold them accountable. This is why doctors need
strong guidance and laws in place to ensure that some of them do not end
up becoming the most dangerous people in the state. It is also why they
should not be involved in assisted suicide.

8. As the doctor phrase (clause 14 quoted above) was introduced into
the DPP guidance after, and as a direct result of, a lengthy public
consultation (34% of respondents supported its inclusion) surely it
should not be changed, or redefined, at a whim by the DPP without a
similar public consultation. Simply asking medical bodies for their
opinion would be inappropriate and inadequate – rather like asking the
police about guidance on prosecuting policemen. This is why the GMC now
has a strong lay membership because as a result of the Shipman case and
others it was decided that doctors were not capable of regulating
themselves.

It seems to me that the DPP has not merely ‘clarified’, but actually
changed the meaning and scope of the guidance. Furthermore she has made
the change without apparently consulting anybody at all.
I await the result of Kenward’s legal challenge with great interest.Editor’s note. This appeared at www.cps.gov.uk/consultations/as_responses_question_2.html

Pushing DNRs on Elderly at National Health Service

Send to Kindle

By Wesley J. Smith

Wesley Smith

Can’t have expensive OLD people hanging around using up resources
(that their enterprise and hard work helped generate!) Apparently the
bureaucratic controlled National Health Service (NHS) in the UK wants
doctors to ask EVERY elderly person–healthy or not–whether they want a
do not resuscitate put on their chart.

From the Daily Mail story:

Doctors are being told to ask all
patients over 75 if they will agree to a ‘do not resuscitate’ order.
New NHS guidelines urge GPs to draw up end-of-life plans for over-75s,
as well as younger patients suffering from cancer, dementia, heart
disease or serious lung conditions.

They are also being told to ask
whether the patient wants doctors to try to resuscitate them if their
health suddenly deteriorates, The NHS says the guidance will improve
patients’ end-of-life care, but medical professionals say it is
‘blatantly wrong’ and will frighten the elderly into thinking they are
being ‘written off’.

In some surgeries, nurses are
cold-calling patients over 75 or with long-term conditions and asking
them over the phone if they have ‘thought about resuscitation’.

Good grief! A DNR is an “allow to die” order in the event of a
cardiac arrest. It should only be signed when one understands the
specific circumstance under which it would be applied.
And don’t tell me there won’t be some “persuasion.” It’s like the
dinner guest who overstays his welcome and the host looks at her watch
and asks how long a drive it is to get home.
The NHS is a socialized system, but it is relevant to the USA because
of the aspect of centralized control. Don’t be surprised if one day
doctors receive just such a memo from our Obamacare overlords. And don’t
forget that the technocrat, Jeb Bush, has already called for mandatory
signing of advance medical directives for everyone on Medicare.

Not yet, but one day–unless we smarten up and dismember the growing federal power over standards of care.Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s great blog.

Temple football player rescued from abortion by biological mother’s caring cousin

Send to Kindle

By Dave AndruskoEditor’s note. Thursday begins (for millions of sports fans) the
all-consuming NFL draft. In the back of my rapidly aging brain, this
reminded me of a story we ran a while back that is both football-related
and profoundly uplifting. I hope you agree.My thanks to a NRL News Today reader who forwarded me the story,
“Temple wideout owes it all to his mom.” (For non-football types, a
wideout is a pass receiver.) The Philadelphia Daily News’s Mike Kern did
a superb job profiling Temple football player Khalif Herbin and his
mother, Lynda Jones.

Khalif Herbin and his mother, Lynda Jones.John Munson/The Star-Ledger

He begins

“KHALIF HERBIN’S story is remarkable. In large part because it almost never became a story at all.”

Back in 1994, Jones received a long-distance call from Denise Herbin, a cousin, a woman she had never been close to.

“The voice sounded frantic,
saying she was going to have an abortion. So Jones immediately drove
from North Jersey to South Carolina. Then the two headed back to
Montclair. Three weeks later, Herbin gave birth to twins. The girl died.
The boy weighed 4 pounds. Herbin told Jones she didn’t want him. Jones,
who was 30, took the baby home with her.

“’I think it was meant to be,’ she said.”

The story would have been immensely moving if, having told of how
Jones rescued Khalif from abortion, Kern then focused only on the
challenges Jones faced, the courage she demonstrated. Khalif was not the
only Herbin child Jones adopted. She lovingly brought two more home,
had a child of her own, but also endured an abusive relationship.
It was not until much later in life, after retiring on disability and marrying, that her life assumed “normalcy.”
But a very important part of the story is how Jones raised Khalif.
Not just to be the very decent human being everyone says he is. Even
though the family has not seen or heard from Denise Herbin for more than
15 years, Jones raised him in a manner that every November he
celebrates his biological mother’s birthday.

“People wonder why I would do that for someone who didn’t want me,”
Khalif explained to Kern. “My mom encouraged that when I was a kid.
[Denise Herbin] could have got an abortion. She was smart enough to say,
‘I’m going to give him to the right person.’ ”

He added, “Mom was always honest with me. She wasn’t afraid to tell me my story.”
Later in the story Khalif tells Kern “I used to ask God, ‘What did I
do to deserve this?’ What happens is what happens. There’s a lot of
people who would trade places with me. It could have been so much worse.
I know people who aren’t going to make it.”
Kern’s conclusion is too powerful to paraphrase. He quotes Khalif, who never knew his father, who said

“’Most important, I want to be a
great parent,’ said Khalif, a social work major who enjoys drawing and
writing poetry. ‘I don’t want to be that father who’s not there. What
you learn when you get to see things at a young age, that builds you up
to be strong. Mentally I feel like I’m light-years ahead of everyone
else. It made me passionate, it made me emotional. Who I am and what I
am, that came from my mother. She knows what I’m going to do before I do
it.

“’I don’t ever want her worrying
about me. I’m always telling her I’m going to be successful. I don’t
want to disappoint her. I’m an extension of her. God has given me a
gift. I’d be crazy to waste it. One of my biggest hopes is that I’ll be
able to walk into my old high school gym and church and talk about
everything I’ve been through to motivate them . . .

“’She’s not looking for me to
repay her. She’s the most selfless person you’ll ever meet. She doesn’t
like to cry in front of us, but she’s cried a few times. That’s what
keeps me going, when I want to quit. I promise you that when I get
older, she’s going to get some stuff from me. I just want her to be
happy.’”

Sawing off the unborn child’s arms and legs “Isn’t More Gruesome Than Any Other Surgery,” pro-abortionist insists

Send to Kindle

By Dave AndruskoThe headline on Sarah Erdreich’s post is “Take It From Me: Abortion Isn’t More Gruesome Than Any Other Surgery.”
The objective is not hard to figure out: pro-abortionists have to
relativize/trivialize the systematic dismantlement, piece by piece, of
unborn babies in a dismemberment abortion.
Erdreich’s tactic is a sub-set of pro-abortion propaganda, the intent
of which is to obscure and/or ridicule the normal human response to
butchering unborn babies.
One common anti-life approach is to bypass altogether what takes
place and airily blame pro-lifers for appealing to the emotions. For
instance, Caitlin Borgmann, former state strategies coordinator for the
ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told the Associated Press that the
language of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act
is “meant to try to create an inflammatory description that people are
going to read and then support the bill because their instinct is that
this sounds terrible.”
Yes, to any morally sentient human being, ripping heads off of little torsos does sound terrible.
Others indulge in the familiar language of pro-abortion doublespeak.
To quote Tara Culp-Ressler, a dismemberment abortion “involves dilating
the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and
placental tissue.”

That’s right. Arms. Legs. Heads. Fingers. Toes–all “fetal and placental tissue.”
Erdreich takes a slightly different approach. She’s about to have
wrist surgery–and doesn’t “slic[ing] so deep into my right arm that the
muscle, bone and tendon will be exposed” sound “incredibly gruesome”?

Yes, it does, she tells us, “but it’s also essential for my health.”
And besides, there were more “radical and grisly” options. Erdreich went
with this one. Why? “My doctor chose this option because in her opinion
it is the best one available.”
From there she mocks pro-lifers because (a) they probably will want
this wrist surgery banned because it sounds so “gruesome” ; and (b) they
made up “dismemberment” as a description of what happens.

Let’s go through Erdreich’s argument.

· The unborn child is a distinct human organism. Muscle, bone, and tendon are not.

· The patient-Erdreich–will be
under anesthesia. Her surgery is considerable but nothing compared to
being torn apart, limb from limb and then bleeding to death.

· She insists “dismemberment” is
“not a medical term and doesn’t describe an abortion procedure.” Guess
who uses that term? Abortionists! Guess also where the language has
appeared? In an opinion written by a Supreme Court justice!

· “Informed consent” is part and
parcel of medical treatment. Erderich knows precisely what will happen
to her. Abortionists admit they do not tell women what happens to their
baby in a dismemberment abortion. Why? Both to spare women from any
‘emotional’ burden, and to pretend they are saintly figures who are
taking on the pain the woman would otherwise experience if she knew the
truth. Hard to tell whether that is more paternalistic or misogynistic.
How about the pain of the unborn? Doesn’t exist.

One other thing. Erdreich no doubt thought she was really being
clever when she invoked childbirth as an experience that is “really easy
to describe in gory terms.”

I could also invoke something that is “really easy to describe in
gory terms”–a newborn abandoned in a waste disposal– which is happening
more and more and more often. In the post-Roe era, merely a coincidence?
To the pro-abortion set, of course. But not to the rest of us.
Erdreich told us that she chose the less “radical” option, based on
her doctor’s advice and experience. Likewise, she would surely say, the
less “radical” option for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy is to
eliminate the “problem” using the technique the abortionist recommends,
based on his experience.

As always, to the pro-abortionist, life and death, birth and
dismemberment are simply alternative ways of talking about the same
thing: pregnancy termination. One “terminates” in a beautiful baby. The
other “terminates” in bloody human body parts reassembled by the nurse
to make sure no “fetal parts” remain in the post-abortive woman.
The pro-abortion mind’s ability to distance itself from what is
happening is almost as scary as it is troubling. As veteran pro-abortion
apologists David Grimes and Carole Joffe tell us at rhrealitycheck.org

The specifics of abortion methods
can be unpleasant to the lay public. However, this is true of most
operations that remove tissue from the body.

Get it? We dummies who lack the technical expertise of the
abortionist look at a completely neutral graphic of what a dismemberment
abortion does to a baby and want to retch.
They, like Erdreich, have long since made a separate peace with their heart, mind, and stomach.
What a bunch.

Purvi Patel appeals 20-year sentence for aborting her 25-30 week old baby and then ignoring him after he was born alive

Send to Kindle

By Dave Andrusko

Purvi Patel (Robert Franklin, South Bend Tribune)

This will be a fairly brief, but very important, post. WSBT-TV
reported today that attorneys for Purvi Patel have filed an appeal of
her 20 year prison sentence. Pro-abortionists are determined to turn
Patel into a martyr, an innocent victim of over-zealous prosecutors. As
we have explained on numerous occasions, this narrative, while wholly
fictitious, is important to the pro-abortion cause.
As NRL News Today readers recall, St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hurley sentenced Patel for throwing her newborn son into a dumpster following a chemically-induced abortion.

In February, following a trial that took place over six days and
which 20 witnesses offered testimony, Patel was convicted of feticide
and child neglect. Prosecutors said she took drugs to induce an abortion
and failed to get medical help for the baby when he was born alive.
“You, Ms. Patel, are an educated woman of considerable means. If you
wished to terminate your pregnancy safely and legally, you could have
done so,” said Judge Hurley said. “You planned a course of action and
took matters into your own hands.”

St. Joseph County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Mark Roule said Patel could
have sought help for her baby, “but instead betrayed a victim who was
wholly dependent on her,” according to the South Bend Tribune’s
Christian Sheckler. “His only chance at survival was his mother,” Roule
said. “In this case, the mother did nothing, left him on the floor to
die and threw him in the trash.”
Here’s how the pro-abortion site rhrealitycheck.org described what
happened. The first two paragraphs establish the mythology and assert
Patel’s status as a victim:

Attorneys for Purvi Patel, the
Indiana woman convicted of both feticide and felony neglect of a
dependent, filed an appeal arguing there was no proof Patel took any
drugs to end her pregnancy.

Patel, an Indian American woman
who lived at home in a conservative Hindu household, in July 2013
entered an emergency room in South Bend, Indiana, while suffering heavy
vaginal bleeding. She initially denied to doctors that she had been
pregnant. After doctors persisted, Patel acknowledged she had
miscarried, telling them the fetus was stillborn and that she had placed
it in a bag and placed the bag in a dumpster.

Not true, not remotely true.

The “no proof” argument manages to avoid an abundance of text
messages establishing not only that Patel tried to obtain abortifacients
from overseas, she received them with the intent of aborting her child
and did so. As WSBT’s Kelli Stopczynski reported,

According to text messages, the
pills arrived at Moe’s Southwest Grill in Mishawaka — a restaurant
Patel’s family owns — in early July. But Patel waited to take those
pills until July 10, continuing to provide a detailed account of her
situation to her friend, [Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Aimee] Herring
told the jury.

“BTW, these pills taste like sh**. If these pills don’t work”¦I’m gonna be mad,” the text messages allegedly said.

Then on July 13, Patel text messaged her friend, “Just lost the baby. I’m gonna clean up the bathroom and then go to Moe’s.”

And it is probably quite true that the unmarried Patel did not want
her parents to know she was pregnant. But that doesn’t change what
happened after the baby was born alive nor substantiate Patel’s claim
that she miscarried. The phony “miscarriage” argument is put front and
center to “prove” that every woman who miscarries is potentially liable
to be prosecuted and sent to jail.Calvin Freiburger
did a brilliant job dismantling all the canards and misrepresentations
of the testimony to show that the evidence demonstrating that the baby
was indeed born alive was scientifically unimpeachable.

There are multiple tragedies here, starting with the unnecessary
death of Patel’s viable, 25 to 30-week-old son. But another enormous
tragedy would be if the pro-abortion sites that promulgate lies about
Patel and her baby are allowed to substitute mythology for truth.

I am convinced if a bill was proposed that said abortion clinics in
Florida must have an actual address (as opposed to a PO Box), Florida
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz would indignantly announce that it is a
“dangerous step toward the ultimate goal sought by some Republicans:
banning all abortions,” as she did today in explaining her opposition to a 24-hour waiting period bill.
To be clear, it is true that Wasserman Schultz, who pulls double duty
as a congresswoman and chair of the Democratic National Committee,
hyperventilates at a drop of a pro-life hat. So we shouldn’t be terribly
surprised–or surprised at all–that she would claim that such
commonsense legislation “will increase suffering for women and their
children — and might cost some their lives,” according to the Florida
Sun Sentinel’s Anthony Man.

Wasserman Schultz and a handful of similarly-minded people held a
news conference this morning at in the courtyard of the Federal
Courthouse in downtown Fort Lauderdale. Gov. Rick Scott is expected to
sign the bill–passed overwhelmingly in both houses–in short order, so
Wasserman Schultz had to hustle if she was going to get her demagoguery
for the day in before HB 633 is law.
At the risk of stating the obvious (to anyone other than the
Wasserman Schultzes), waiting periods don’t cost lives, they save lives.
But, of course, those lives–the unborn’s–don’t matter.
After all this is the same woman who got into a sparring match with
pro-life presidential candidate Rand Paul (R-Ky.) over whether Wasserman
Schultz was okay with aborting a seven-pound unborn baby. Answer? Of course, she was.

“We have very different definitions of personal liberty,” she said. “The Democratic Party’s position is that we are pro-choice.”
Mr. Man’s article ended with “This article will be updated. Check back for more.”
He is correct. Wasserman Schultz will probably add something equally over-the-top in the next couple of hours.

Pro-Life Doctor Succeeds in Reversing Abortion Pill

Send to Kindle

By Andrew BairAdvancements
in science and medical technology have proven to be great gifts to the
pro-life movement time and time again. Doctors are able to routinely
deliver premature babies at earlier and earlier stages of development.
Innovations in sonogram imaging have provided a window to the womb
enabling expectant mothers to see their unborn children face to face. We
also have the ability to hear the unborn baby’s tiny heartbeat.
These glimpses at the baby’s humanity have inspired countless numbers
of mothers to reject abortion and choose life. However, until now, once
a pregnant woman selected a chemically-induced abortion, there was
little hope that the unborn child would survive.
Now, a new medical advancement is saving lives in a previously
unimaginable way. Dr. George Delgado, medical director at the Culture of
Life Family Health Care in San Diego, California, has been instrumental
in developing a technique to reverse what was the inevitably fatal
effect of the RU-486 abortion pill.
Dr. Delgado’s story began when he received a call from a friend in El
Paso, Texas, who informed him about a woman who had taken the abortion
pill but immediately regretted the decision.
At the 2015 American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (AAPLOG) conference, Dr. Delgado told attendees, “I
started thinking about my years of experience with progesterone, and how
I’d used progesterone to try to prevent miscarriage.” The protocol
calls for taking the injectable progesterone as soon as possible after
taking the mifepristone.
Dr. Mary Davenport, another pro-life physician at the forefront of
this new innovation, explained how chemical abortions involve two drugs:

“Medical [chemical] abortion is
actually performed in early pregnancy with TWO pills, the first – RU-486
– mifepristone or Mifeprex, antagonizes the hormone progesterone, which
is necessary for pregnancy. This cuts off the nutritional supply to the
pregnancy, ending in the unborn baby’s death. One or two days later the
woman takes a second pill, misoprostol or Cytotec, which causes uterine
contractions and expels the pregnancy. Medical abortion is frequently a
horrible experience for the women, lasting up to 2-4 weeks with nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, hemorrhage, and intense pain.”

The reversal attempts to counteract the first drug, mifepristone, before the second one, misoprostol, is ever given.
Progesterone is a critical hormone during pregnancy, said Delgado. It
helps nourish the placenta, keeps the cervix closed, and inhibits
contractions. Mifepristone, a progesterone receptor antagonist, acts
like a “false key” binding with the progesterone receptor and blocking
its activity. This action softens the cervix, makes the uterine wall
more vulnerable to contractions, and attacks the placenta, Delgado said.
“I thought, well, maybe we can out-compete [mifepristone] at the receptor [using progesterone],” he said.
At a press conference held at the National Press Club, AAPLOG
physicians reported that as of the end of 2014, 78 babies have been born
after abortion reversal treatment, with 45 women still pregnant, a 57%
success rate out of 223 attempted reversals.
One success story is Andrea Minichini, her boyfriend Chris Caicedo,
and their son Gabriel David. Minichini, though still wrestling with the
decision, took the first abortion pill, mifepristone, while the
abortionist at Planned Parenthood cheered her on.
Instead of taking the second pill the next day, which would induce
contractions, she began to look into ways to stop the death of her
unborn child. Not surprisingly, the abortion center staff was no help. A
local hospital informed her that if she carried the baby to term, he
would face severe health issues.A Google search led her to Dr. George Delgado in San Diego. On December 31, 2014, she delivered a healthy baby boy they named Gabriel David.
“Obviously women are changing their minds and interested in options,” said Delgado.
As noted, Dr. Delgado’s innovations have already saved 78 young
lives. And that is just the beginning! AAPLOG recently unveiled a new
“Emergency Abortion Pill Reversal Kit,” which they would like to see
placed in emergency rooms and urgent care clinics nationwide.
Dr. Davenport observed that there are approximately 200,000 chemically-induced abortions annually in the USA.
Dr. George Delgado will address the National Right to Life Convention
this summer in New Orleans, Louisiana. The event will run July 9-11 and
also feature keynote speakers Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, John
McCormack of the Weekly Standard, NRLC President Carol Tobias, and many
more.
For more information, please visit www.nrlconvention.com.

Baby born at 19 weeks lives for two hours, kicks his feet in video

Send to Kindle

By Nancy FlandersYouanna
Torres was 19 weeks and six days pregnant when she started to
experience cramping and bleeding. Fearing the worst, Torres and her
boyfriend, Fernando Viera, rushed to the ER. After an examination,
doctors informed Torres that there was nothing they could do to stop her
from going into premature labor.

Diagnosed with cervical incompetence (when the cervix begins to open
too early during pregnancy) Torres’ baby was born nearly 20 weeks
premature on April 4, 2015.

Baby Savier lived for two hours outside of the womb and died in the
loving arms of his mother. Because he was born extremely premature,
doctors were unable to do anything to save him.
Devastated, Torres and Viera took photos of their son, and even
recorded a video of him. The powerful recording shows the humanity of
baby Savier, as he kicks his legs while his mother cradles him. The
parents spent time holding him and loving him before he passed away.

The following day, Torres shared her heartbreaking story on Facebook, asking for prayers. She wrote:

Doctors informed Torres that she will need a cervical stitch when she
becomes pregnant again. This will keep her cervix closed so that the
same incident with Savier will not occur again.
The days following the loss of her son, Torres continued to share her
emotions. She wrote about how difficult it is to wake up in the
morning, remembering that her son is gone and that she is no longer
pregnant. Torres wrote about how happy she was to give her 10-year-old
daughter, Sashalie, the sibling she had always wanted.

“I love you with all my heart,” Torres wrote to Savier, telling him to rest in God’s arms.
Savier was not only deeply loved, but he was alive during his short
time outside of the womb. At less than 20 weeks gestation, he was a
human being worthy and deserving of life. His beautiful face shows us
just how precious he and all preborn children are.
Torres says she knows Savier is watching over her, and she feels that
he wants her to smile and be happy. She plans to place some of his
ashes in a necklace so she can always keep her son close.
Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org and is reprinted with permission.

Community mourns pregnant woman who was shot to death

Send to Kindle

Her six month unborn baby survived

By Dave Andrusko

Kimberly Richardson is seen in a photo posted on a GiveForward fundraising website for her family.

Faith Baptist Church in Youngstown, North Carolina, was filled with
over 900 people Sunday afternoon who came to pay tribute to a vivacious
woman “who had a way of just filling up a room with a smile.”
Six months pregnant, Kimberly Richardson was shot, allegedly by her boyfriend, but managed to stay alive long enough to place a call to 911.
According to KTLA 5, “Officers believe Richardson’s strength while
talking with 911 in her dying moments ultimately saved her baby’s life.”
Yesterday, ABC 11 reported,

There was also talk of the miraculous survival of the baby, Lacy Dianne Richardson.

Pastor Richard Mills said the baby’s life was possible because of Kimberly Richardson’s “heroic acts” of striving to live.

But Mills said the baby “still has a long way to go.”

He asked the community to pray for little Lacy.

Richardson’s close friend and roommate, Lauren Byerly, told ABC 11,”When she found out she was pregnant she was so excited.”

Byerly added, “She was going to be an amazing mother. And I was
excited to be a part of her life and her family’s life. …[I]t helps a
lot to know there’s part of her still here.”
Penney Smith, a family friend, said the outpouring of sympathy and support from the community is helping everyone to cope.
“It’s terrible with tragedies like this but we always can pull together and be there to support each other,” Smith told ABC 11.

As NRL News Today reported last week, on April 18, 911 dispatchers
received a call from the 25-year-old Richardson, a call they could
barely make out.
“Help, I’ve been shot” Richardson said over the phone before it went
silent. As she struggled for breath, according to WNCN-TV, “She was able
to tell the dispatcher that she was outside, but what followed was
nearly 43 second of chilling silence before she could muster enough
energy to again tell the dispatcher, ‘Behind Party City.’”
The conversation ended after Richardson responded “I can’t…I can’t talk” after being ask for her phone number.

The dispatcher tried unsuccessful to get her back on the line. Police sirens were the next thing heard over the phone.
When Raleigh police arrived, they discovered that Richardson had not
only been shot, but that she was also six months pregnant. She was
rushed to WakeMed where doctors performed an emergency C-Section that
saved her daughter’s life.
Tragically, Richardson died.

Her boyfriend, Daniel Joseph Steele, 25, was immediately a suspect
when police discovered that Richardson had said, “He shot me” during the
911 call.
He was charged with Richardson’s murder and is being held without bond.

Monday, April 27, 2015

New Research demonstrates conclusively babies in first week feel pain

Send to Kindle

By Dave AndruskoA
first-of-its-kind study at Oxford University demonstrates not only that
babies in their first week after birth can and do feel pain, they are
also far more pain-sensitive than are adults. The findings were
published in the journal eLife.
As Science Codex described the findings, “The researchers say that it
is now possible to see pain ‘happening’ inside the infant brain and it
looks a lot like pain in adults.”

Rebeccah Slater, a doctor at Oxford’s pediatrics department, who led
the study, said, “Obviously babies can’t tell us about their experience
of pain and it is difficult to infer pain from visual observations.” In
fact, she noted, “some people have argued that babies’ brains are not
developed enough for them to really feel pain … [yet] our study provides
the first really strong evidence this is not the case.”

However using an MRI to demonstrate newborn pain was problematic because it was thought babies would not keep still enough.
“However, as babies that are less than a week old are more docile
than older babies, we found that their parents were able to get them to
fall asleep inside a scanner so that, for the first time, we could study
pain in the infant brain using MRI,” Dr. Slater said

The subjects were 10 healthy babies between the ages of one and six
days and 10 healthy adults, ages 23 to 36. (Infants were recruited from
th
e John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford. The adult volunteers were Oxford
University staff or students.)
According to Science Codex

MRI scans were then taken of the
babies’ brains as they were ‘poked’ on the bottom of their feet with a
special retracting rod creating a sensation ‘like being poked with a
pencil’ – mild enough that it did not wake them up. These scans were
then compared with brain scans of adults exposed to the same pain
stimulus.

The researchers found that 18 of
the 20 brain regions active in adults experiencing pain were active in
babies. Scans also showed that babies’ brains had the same response to a
weak ‘poke’ as adults did to a stimulus four times as strong. The
findings suggest that not only do babies experience pain much like
adults but that they also have a much lower pain threshold.

As virtually all the stories covering the study noted, it was common
medical practice for babies to be given neuromuscular blocks but no pain
relief medication during surgery as recently as the 1980s. “In 2014 a
review of neonatal pain management practice in intensive care
highlighted that although such infants experience an average of 11
painful procedures per day 60% of babies do not receive any kind of pain
medication.”

Dr. Slater put the importance of the findings in context. “Thousands
of babies across the UK undergo painful procedures every day but there
are often no local pain management guidelines to help clinicians. Our
study suggests that not only do babies experience pain but they may be
more sensitive to it than adults”. She added, “We have to think that if
we would provide pain relief for an older child undergoing a procedure
then we should look at giving pain relief to an infant undergoing a
similar procedure.”

Alluding to recent studies in adults, Dr. Slater said they “have
shown that it is possible to detect a neurological signature of pain
using MRI. In the future we hope to develop similar systems to detect
the ‘pain signature’ in babies’ brains: this could enable us to test
different pain relief treatments and see what would be most effective
for this vulnerable population who can’t speak for themselves.”
Of course, virtually everything that Dr. Slater said about pain and
the newborn child applies to pain and older unborn children (after 20
weeks), especially the conventional wisdom that insisted their brains
lacked the structures to feel pain.
In fact there is ample evidence that by 20 weeks, the unborn child
can experience pain. To read about just some of the extensive
documentation, go to www.nrlc.org/abortion/fetalpain or
www.doctorsonfetalpain.com